If what Incognito said was right--that he and Martin regularly texted each other back and forth with similarly threatening messages--then the idea that Martin was planning a lawsuit for months really makes no sense. Why would he create evidence that he was a willing participant in these exchanges if he wanted to sue?

The much more likely scenario is that Martin simply broke down emotionally from the constant hazing and decided he needed a break from it. There's a possibility he's not planning to sue anyone for harassment. He may just be trying to get out of his contract with the Dolphins so he can seek employment elsewhere where the locker room situation is more to his liking.

Yeah, it's really likely that Martin broke down and started sending threatening messages as a joke from the emotional stress. How about the bleedingly obvious conclusion that the 1100 texts shows they were friends who thought those texts were funny and never took them serious.

Or maybe Martin was trying to play along with it but didn't really like it and finally decided to leave? I don't know why that's so hard to comprehend.

Playing along 1100 times! That's more texts than I have to my wife in 5 years. What about when he texted him after leaving that he doesn't blame Richie? It's hard to believe because there's no evidence to support your story.

The dude lost his job and mind. He couldn't take the pressure and now he is setting up a bogus lawsuit

Why do people keep saying he lost his job? He was still a starter right up to the game before he walked out (in New England for those who watched the game). McKinnie was brought in to play left tackle, but Martin got moved back to the right side replacing Clabo. Clabo was the guy who ended up on the bench.

Martin had played right tackle all last year too, so it's not like he had the left tackle job for all that long.

He was at right tackle when Jake Long was at left. Long left Martin moved to left and he did such a great job that the Dolphins traded a pick in the draft mid season to get a left tackle who immediately replaced Martin. It's hardly a secret that Martin has struggled at left tackle and his movement to right was an indication of his struggles.

The dude lost his job and mind. He couldn't take the pressure and now he is setting up a bogus lawsuit

Why do people keep saying he lost his job? He was still a starter right up to the game before he walked out (in New England for those who watched the game). McKinnie was brought in to play left tackle, but Martin got moved back to the right side replacing Clabo. Clabo was the guy who ended up on the bench.

Martin had played right tackle all last year too, so it's not like he had the left tackle job for all that long.

He was at right tackle when Jake Long was at left. Long left Martin moved to left and he did such a great job that the Dolphins traded a pick in the draft mid season to get a left tackle who immediately replaced Martin. It's hardly a secret that Martin has struggled at left tackle and his movement to right was an indication of his struggles.

Yeah, but lots of young tackles struggle to master the left side, and most tackles take a few years to really develop into quality players. Eric Fisher and Luke Joeckel (the number 1 and 2 picks from the draft) are both playing the right side now too. Nate Solder was eased into the job his first year, playing TE a ton. I'm not saying Martin is the best tackle in the world--far from it--but the idea that he "lost his job" is a bit far fetched when he was still starting.

If what Incognito said was right--that he and Martin regularly texted each other back and forth with similarly threatening messages--then the idea that Martin was planning a lawsuit for months really makes no sense. Why would he create evidence that he was a willing participant in these exchanges if he wanted to sue?

The much more likely scenario is that Martin simply broke down emotionally from the constant hazing and decided he needed a break from it. There's a possibility he's not planning to sue anyone for harassment. He may just be trying to get out of his contract with the Dolphins so he can seek employment elsewhere where the locker room situation is more to his liking.

Yeah, it's really likely that Martin broke down and started sending threatening messages as a joke from the emotional stress. How about the bleedingly obvious conclusion that the 1100 texts shows they were friends who thought those texts were funny and never took them serious.

Or maybe Martin was trying to play along with it but didn't really like it and finally decided to leave? I don't know why that's so hard to comprehend.

Playing along 1100 times! That's more texts than I have to my wife in 5 years. What about when he texted him after leaving that he doesn't blame Richie? It's hard to believe because there's no evidence to support your story.

Of course not. There's not enough evidence to support any story yet. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of the investigation.

Was just about to post that. I think that changes the context of that 'text' just a little. I can share somethign that's funny as a way to make someone laugh but if I say those same words in a blank text, that's entirely different.

Was just about to post that. I think that changes the context of that 'text' just a little. I can share somethign that's funny as a way to make someone laugh but if I say those same words in a blank text, that's entirely different.

Or the blank text could be just as much a joke. Unless you seriously think he was threatening to kill the guys parents

Was just about to post that. I think that changes the context of that 'text' just a little. I can share somethign that's funny as a way to make someone laugh but if I say those same words in a blank text, that's entirely different.

So Incognito's text was a serious threat and Martins was a joke? Come on, it obviously shows they both found those types of things funny.

If what Incognito said was right--that he and Martin regularly texted each other back and forth with similarly threatening messages--then the idea that Martin was planning a lawsuit for months really makes no sense. Why would he create evidence that he was a willing participant in these exchanges if he wanted to sue?

The much more likely scenario is that Martin simply broke down emotionally from the constant hazing and decided he needed a break from it. There's a possibility he's not planning to sue anyone for harassment. He may just be trying to get out of his contract with the Dolphins so he can seek employment elsewhere where the locker room situation is more to his liking.

Yeah, it's really likely that Martin broke down and started sending threatening messages as a joke from the emotional stress. How about the bleedingly obvious conclusion that the 1100 texts shows they were friends who thought those texts were funny and never took them serious.

Or maybe Martin was trying to play along with it but didn't really like it and finally decided to leave? I don't know why that's so hard to comprehend.

Playing along 1100 times! That's more texts than I have to my wife in 5 years. What about when he texted him after leaving that he doesn't blame Richie? It's hard to believe because there's no evidence to support your story.

Of course not. There's not enough evidence to support any story yet. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of the investigation.

So Incognito's text was a serious threat and Martins was a joke? Come on, it obviously shows they both found those types of things funny.

I totally agree with you.

It really sounds like these guys were just messing around a lot with each other. Busting each others balls like friends do. I bet the N word is thrown around locker rooms like crazy with both blacks and whites. It amazes me that when it is out in public team mates get offended. Give me a break. Inside the locker room it's all good, outside it's oh my gosh, he said what? How dare him. I better act insulted. Please!

I am a Caucasian American, I have African American friends, Native American friends, Mexican American friends, Asian American friends and we all hang out together, our girls hang out together, we all train together and some of us even work together. We call each other racist names all the time. We are playing, we are best friends, it is what we do. Big deal. We all know if it ever came down to it we would fight to the death for each other.

Richie Incognito is being used as a scapegoat for Martin not wanting to play anymore. His heart isn't into it anymore and he has some mental health issues going on.

1. Martin didn't want to play football anymore or wasn't cut out to do it, and rather than just deciding to quit and do something else, he decided to sue to get money. In this view, the presumed harassment suit, should it occur, would be purely fabricated in a ploy to get money.

2. Martin found the locker room atmosphere at the Dolphins emotionally intolerable and, after trying to put up with it and even participate in it for a year and a half, finally decided it was too much and was messing with his head. At some point (either before or after leaving), he decided he still wants to play NFL ball, but not in an atmosphere like that of the Dolphins' locker room. However, being under contract with the Dolphins for two and half more years, he can't just go look for another job as an NFL lineman unless there are grounds to void his contract. In this view, the harassment claim (which may or may not become a suit) is what Martin is relying on to get his contract voided and become a free agent.

My instinct is that scenario two is more plausible, given what we know of the events and also what little I know of Martin's past history and his background. However, as I said above, we don't have sufficient evidence to know for sure at this point, and we'll have to wait and see what happens.

I have said before that I think this suit raises some interesting questions about the CBA that both the league and the union are, I'm sure, quite concerned about. A premise in the CBA is that a contract can't be voided by a player, only by the team. But if the team fails to protect a player from harassment, is the contract still valid? I suspect Martin's case is really intended to call that into question. If this is Martin's claim and he wins his argument, the NFL is going to have to change the way it does business. Preserving respectful behaviour in the locker room will become a responsibility of the team, and something they must do if their contracts are going to remain valid. Personally, I think that's a good thing in the long run. Remember all the complaining about so many NFL players being arrested this offseason? Part of that is tolerance of a "thuggish" mentality under the assumption that you need to be thuggish to compete well. Personally, I think that's BS. Maybe I'm naive, but I still believe in the ideal of sportsmanship, and believe it's possible to be both competitive and respectful of others. The Martin case may provide the test to see if that's really possible.

1. Martin didn't want to play football anymore or wasn't cut out to do it, and rather than just deciding to quit and do something else, he decided to sue to get money. In this view, the presumed harassment suit, should it occur, would be purely fabricated in a ploy to get money.

2. Martin found the locker room atmosphere at the Dolphins emotionally intolerable and, after trying to put up with it and even participate in it for a year and a half, finally decided it was too much and was messing with his head. At some point (either before or after leaving), he decided he still wants to play NFL ball, but not in an atmosphere like that of the Dolphins' locker room. However, being under contract with the Dolphins for two and half more years, he can't just go look for another job as an NFL lineman unless there are grounds to void his contract. In this view, the harassment claim (which may or may not become a suit) is what Martin is relying on to get his contract voided and become a free agent.

My instinct is that scenario two is more plausible, given what we know of the events and also what little I know of Martin's past history and his background. However, as I said above, we don't have sufficient evidence to know for sure at this point, and we'll have to wait and see what happens.

I have said before that I think this suit raises some interesting questions about the CBA that both the league and the union are, I'm sure, quite concerned about. A premise in the CBA is that a contract can't be voided by a player, only by the team. But if the team fails to protect a player from harassment, is the contract still valid? I suspect Martin's case is really intended to call that into question. If this is Martin's claim and he wins his argument, the NFL is going to have to change the way it does business. Preserving respectful behaviour in the locker room will become a responsibility of the team, and something they must do if their contracts are going to remain valid. Personally, I think that's a good thing in the long run. Remember all the complaining about so many NFL players being arrested this offseason? Part of that is tolerance of a "thuggish" mentality under the assumption that you need to be thuggish to compete well. Personally, I think that's BS. Maybe I'm naive, but I still believe in the ideal of sportsmanship, and believe it's possible to be both competitive and respectful of others. The Martin case may provide the test to see if that's really possible.

Put me down for a third theory. Martin plays in one of the most stressful jobs in the world. From skipping offseason workouts to playing poorly he was criticized by the media, fans, teammates and coaches for poor play. This peaked when he was replaced at left tackle, another dissapointment in a career of missing expectations. He snapped and walked out. When this story grew he needed to provide answers. Answers came in the form of blaming everyone else.

I have a real problem with you saying they need to "preserve respectful behavior in the locker room." It appears you have a definition for that in your head. Does that mean no swear words? No criticism? I don't know. What if I say someone looks good, and try to kiss them? What if that someone is a person I'm dating- now it's different because she is not offended. If you try to set a standard it will constantly change. It's a standard that is defined by whether the accuser feels offended- so it could include everything or nothing. Where I work people may be offended if I took all my clothes off and changed at work, in a locker room that's acceptable.

You can't make one standard for acceptable behavior because what you may find acceptable others may not and vice versa. You can't dictate what people must be offended by and what they won't.

Sure Martin could have had a strong case he was offended- if he didn't use the same words, make the same killing jokes, wasn't on video laughing about using those jokes, didn't participate- maybe even said something to a coach or teammate that it bothered him. But his actions don't add up here, the other players in that locker room have just as much of a case against Martin harassing them as he does against them harassing him.

1. Martin didn't want to play football anymore or wasn't cut out to do it, and rather than just deciding to quit and do something else, he decided to sue to get money. In this view, the presumed harassment suit, should it occur, would be purely fabricated in a ploy to get money.

2. Martin found the locker room atmosphere at the Dolphins emotionally intolerable and, after trying to put up with it and even participate in it for a year and a half, finally decided it was too much and was messing with his head. At some point (either before or after leaving), he decided he still wants to play NFL ball, but not in an atmosphere like that of the Dolphins' locker room. However, being under contract with the Dolphins for two and half more years, he can't just go look for another job as an NFL lineman unless there are grounds to void his contract. In this view, the harassment claim (which may or may not become a suit) is what Martin is relying on to get his contract voided and become a free agent.

My instinct is that scenario two is more plausible, given what we know of the events and also what little I know of Martin's past history and his background. However, as I said above, we don't have sufficient evidence to know for sure at this point, and we'll have to wait and see what happens.

I have said before that I think this suit raises some interesting questions about the CBA that both the league and the union are, I'm sure, quite concerned about. A premise in the CBA is that a contract can't be voided by a player, only by the team. But if the team fails to protect a player from harassment, is the contract still valid? I suspect Martin's case is really intended to call that into question. If this is Martin's claim and he wins his argument, the NFL is going to have to change the way it does business. Preserving respectful behaviour in the locker room will become a responsibility of the team, and something they must do if their contracts are going to remain valid. Personally, I think that's a good thing in the long run. Remember all the complaining about so many NFL players being arrested this offseason? Part of that is tolerance of a "thuggish" mentality under the assumption that you need to be thuggish to compete well. Personally, I think that's BS. Maybe I'm naive, but I still believe in the ideal of sportsmanship, and believe it's possible to be both competitive and respectful of others. The Martin case may provide the test to see if that's really possible.

Put me down for a third theory. Martin plays in one of the most stressful jobs in the world. From skipping offseason workouts to playing poorly he was criticized by the media, fans, teammates and coaches for poor play. This peaked when he was replaced at left tackle, another dissapointment in a career of missing expectations. He snapped and walked out. When this story grew he needed to provide answers. Answers came in the form of blaming everyone else.

Possible. . . but I think you're exaggerating how "bad" his play has been. It was Clabo who went to the bench, not him. None of us knows what was being said to him about his play by the coaches or his teammates. They could have been highly critical or not. That's something we'll find out eventually, I'm sure.

I also think if he was quitting because of his play, he easily could have just done so without saying much other than he'd lost the desire to play. The only reason he'd have to give explanations is if he wanted to sue for something (i.e., hypothesis 1 above).

I have a real problem with you saying they need to "preserve respectful behavior in the locker room." It appears you have a definition for that in your head. Does that mean no swear words? No criticism? I don't know. What if I say someone looks good, and try to kiss them? What if that someone is a person I'm dating- now it's different because she is not offended. If you try to set a standard it will constantly change. It's a standard that is defined by whether the accuser feels offended- so it could include everything or nothing. Where I work people may be offended if I took all my clothes off and changed at work, in a locker room that's acceptable.

You can't make one standard for acceptable behavior because what you may find acceptable others may not and vice versa. You can't dictate what people must be offended by and what they won't.

Most workplaces have standards of behaviour that have to be followed. I'm not so sure why you find this so problematic. Certainly the military where you work has standards. You can be discharged for saying certain things to your fellow soldiers.

Sure Martin could have had a strong case he was offended- if he didn't use the same words, make the same killing jokes, wasn't on video laughing about using those jokes, didn't participate- maybe even said something to a coach or teammate that it bothered him. But his actions don't add up here, the other players in that locker room have just as much of a case against Martin harassing them as he does against them harassing him.

So far what we've been told about what was said to Martin pales in comparison to what others have accused Martin of saying. I think we have to wait and see what other evidence comes out.

1. Martin didn't want to play football anymore or wasn't cut out to do it, and rather than just deciding to quit and do something else, he decided to sue to get money. In this view, the presumed harassment suit, should it occur, would be purely fabricated in a ploy to get money.

2. Martin found the locker room atmosphere at the Dolphins emotionally intolerable and, after trying to put up with it and even participate in it for a year and a half, finally decided it was too much and was messing with his head. At some point (either before or after leaving), he decided he still wants to play NFL ball, but not in an atmosphere like that of the Dolphins' locker room. However, being under contract with the Dolphins for two and half more years, he can't just go look for another job as an NFL lineman unless there are grounds to void his contract. In this view, the harassment claim (which may or may not become a suit) is what Martin is relying on to get his contract voided and become a free agent.

My instinct is that scenario two is more plausible, given what we know of the events and also what little I know of Martin's past history and his background. However, as I said above, we don't have sufficient evidence to know for sure at this point, and we'll have to wait and see what happens.

I have said before that I think this suit raises some interesting questions about the CBA that both the league and the union are, I'm sure, quite concerned about. A premise in the CBA is that a contract can't be voided by a player, only by the team. But if the team fails to protect a player from harassment, is the contract still valid? I suspect Martin's case is really intended to call that into question. If this is Martin's claim and he wins his argument, the NFL is going to have to change the way it does business. Preserving respectful behaviour in the locker room will become a responsibility of the team, and something they must do if their contracts are going to remain valid. Personally, I think that's a good thing in the long run. Remember all the complaining about so many NFL players being arrested this offseason? Part of that is tolerance of a "thuggish" mentality under the assumption that you need to be thuggish to compete well. Personally, I think that's BS. Maybe I'm naive, but I still believe in the ideal of sportsmanship, and believe it's possible to be both competitive and respectful of others. The Martin case may provide the test to see if that's really possible.

Put me down for a third theory. Martin plays in one of the most stressful jobs in the world. From skipping offseason workouts to playing poorly he was criticized by the media, fans, teammates and coaches for poor play. This peaked when he was replaced at left tackle, another dissapointment in a career of missing expectations. He snapped and walked out. When this story grew he needed to provide answers. Answers came in the form of blaming everyone else.

Possible. . . but I think you're exaggerating how "bad" his play has been. It was Clabo who went to the bench, not him. None of us knows what was being said to him about his play by the coaches or his teammates. They could have been highly critical or not. That's something we'll find out eventually, I'm sure.

I also think if he was quitting because of his play, he easily could have just done so without saying much other than he'd lost the desire to play. The only reason he'd have to give explanations is if he wanted to sue for something (i.e., hypothesis 1 above).

I have a real problem with you saying they need to "preserve respectful behavior in the locker room." It appears you have a definition for that in your head. Does that mean no swear words? No criticism? I don't know. What if I say someone looks good, and try to kiss them? What if that someone is a person I'm dating- now it's different because she is not offended. If you try to set a standard it will constantly change. It's a standard that is defined by whether the accuser feels offended- so it could include everything or nothing. Where I work people may be offended if I took all my clothes off and changed at work, in a locker room that's acceptable.

You can't make one standard for acceptable behavior because what you may find acceptable others may not and vice versa. You can't dictate what people must be offended by and what they won't.

Most workplaces have standards of behaviour that have to be followed. I'm not so sure why you find this so problematic. Certainly the military where you work has standards. You can be discharged for saying certain things to your fellow soldiers.

Sure Martin could have had a strong case he was offended- if he didn't use the same words, make the same killing jokes, wasn't on video laughing about using those jokes, didn't participate- maybe even said something to a coach or teammate that it bothered him. But his actions don't add up here, the other players in that locker room have just as much of a case against Martin harassing them as he does against them harassing him.

So far what we've been told about what was said to Martin pales in comparison to what others have accused Martin of saying. I think we have to wait and see what other evidence comes out.

It doesn't matter how bad his play was, I'm saying his play was criticized and this was a stress factor for him. I wouldn't call this controversial.

The standard for what can be said, in the military or anywhere else is what what offends. That is not a concrete standard, it is one that depends on every individual. There are no specific words that cannot be said, you could offend offend using the most proper language or not offend using every curse word in the book. It's the linguistic equivalent of consent in sex. The same action could be rape in one case or plain old sex in another. If Martin wasn't offended by the words in the locker room they are not against any standard. It doesn't matter if it offends your fragile sensibilities or anyone else's. Martin and Incognito can call each other every racial slur they can think of and kick each other in the nuts and its not abusive if they like it.

To clarify my theory. Martin did not premeditate a plan to sue. He got stressed and walked out. He had to provide an explanation because it was national news and he would be expected to return. I think the abuse theory was concocted afterward, maybe he even believes it because facing the reality that he couldn't handle the stress is harder to accept than blaming everyone else.

This could also be a case of the Dolphins management asking Incognito to administer Code Red a la A Few Good Men. The toughening up treatment may have backfired and hence all the fallout!

Maybe, but we have to work out a few things first.

1. Was Martin even abused

2. Did the coaches say that and if they did did it include some sort of verbal abuse or is that just how it was interpreted In a players head.

3. Are they culpable. In the military violating a direct order is a punishable crime and can be jail time. In the civilian world there is no equivalent so it's not clear this would even get the abusers off the hook.

Since we're still on 1, it's a little premature to worry about the rest.

It doesn't matter how bad his play was, I'm saying his play was criticized and this was a stress factor for him. I wouldn't call this controversial.

The standard for what can be said, in the military or anywhere else is what what offends. That is not a concrete standard, it is one that depends on every individual. There are no specific words that cannot be said, you could offend offend using the most proper language or not offend using every curse word in the book. It's the linguistic equivalent of consent in sex. The same action could be rape in one case or plain old sex in another. If Martin wasn't offended by the words in the locker room they are not against any standard. It doesn't matter if it offends your fragile sensibilities or anyone else's. Martin and Incognito can call each other every racial slur they can think of and kick each other in the nuts and its not abusive if they like it.

To clarify my theory. Martin did not premeditate a plan to sue. He got stressed and walked out. He had to provide an explanation because it was national news and he would be expected to return. I think the abuse theory was concocted afterward, maybe he even believes it because facing the reality that he couldn't handle the stress is harder to accept than blaming everyone else.

[/QUOTE]

If he couldn't handle the normal and expected stress of his job that's one thing. But enduring necessarystress and enduring unnecessary abuse are two different things. We'll see over time which it was. Different jobs of course have different levels and different types of expected stress. Football requires the ability to endure a lot of physical and mental stress, but there are limits to what kind of stresses can legitimately be applied and which rise to an abusive level. The line between what constitutes normal stressful pressure and what constitutes abuse in a football workplace will be tested by this.

You are right, of course, that different individuals have different standards of what they consider abusive and offensive. But it's exactly because individual standards of tolerance differ that you need to set a single standard that governs behaviour among a collective. Some people will be very slow to be offended, others very quick. You can't leave people guessing what will or won't be tolerated by a coworker, which is why we create and enforce collective standards in the workplace. This makes it clearer to everyone what the rules are, and prevents unnecessary stress and conflict. This is all for the good, because honestly we don't want to live in a world where disputes rise continually because of misunderstandings and then end up being settled by fights. A lot of guys seem to romanticize that kind of frontier approach to dispute resolution, but really it is unproductive outside of a few rare situations.

It doesn't matter how bad his play was, I'm saying his play was criticized and this was a stress factor for him. I wouldn't call this controversial.

The standard for what can be said, in the military or anywhere else is what what offends. That is not a concrete standard, it is one that depends on every individual. There are no specific words that cannot be said, you could offend offend using the most proper language or not offend using every curse word in the book. It's the linguistic equivalent of consent in sex. The same action could be rape in one case or plain old sex in another. If Martin wasn't offended by the words in the locker room they are not against any standard. It doesn't matter if it offends your fragile sensibilities or anyone else's. Martin and Incognito can call each other every racial slur they can think of and kick each other in the nuts and its not abusive if they like it.

To clarify my theory. Martin did not premeditate a plan to sue. He got stressed and walked out. He had to provide an explanation because it was national news and he would be expected to return. I think the abuse theory was concocted afterward, maybe he even believes it because facing the reality that he couldn't handle the stress is harder to accept than blaming everyone else.

If he couldn't handle the normal and expected stress of his job that's one thing. But enduring necessarystress and enduring unnecessary abuse are two different things. We'll see over time which it was. Different jobs of course have different levels and different types of expected stress. Football requires the ability to endure a lot of physical and mental stress, but there are limits to what kind of stresses can legitimately be applied and which rise to an abusive level. The line between what constitutes normal stressful pressure and what constitutes abuse in a football workplace will be tested by this.

You are right, of course, that different individuals have different standards of what they consider abusive and offensive. But it's exactly because individual standards of tolerance differ that you need to set a single standard that governs behaviour among a collective. Some people will be very slow to be offended, others very quick. You can't leave people guessing what will or won't be tolerated by a coworker, which is why we create and enforce collective standards in the workplace. This makes it clearer to everyone what the rules are, and prevents unnecessary stress and conflict. This is all for the good, because honestly we don't want to live in a world where disputes rise continually because of misunderstandings and then end up being settled by fights. A lot of guys seem to romanticize that kind of frontier approach to dispute resolution, but really it is unproductive outside of a few rare situations.

I never said things have to be settled by fight so please don't pretend I said something I didn't.

Its exactly this statement (that I underlined) that is scary. Perhaps you don't see how having your behavior and words dictated to you by some authority is a totalitarian idea used throughout history by brutal dictators to criminalize ideas they disagreed with. Again, they put freedom of speech in the constitution for a reason.

The standard has already been set at what offends. Outside of totalitarian efforts against the constitution you cannot go further. You cannot ban words or ideas. There is no reason why your idea of what is acceptable is any more correct then someone else's idea. The idea of which words are "bad" or "good" is completely arbitrary and varies from person to person.

It doesn't matter how bad his play was, I'm saying his play was criticized and this was a stress factor for him. I wouldn't call this controversial.

The standard for what can be said, in the military or anywhere else is what what offends. That is not a concrete standard, it is one that depends on every individual. There are no specific words that cannot be said, you could offend offend using the most proper language or not offend using every curse word in the book. It's the linguistic equivalent of consent in sex. The same action could be rape in one case or plain old sex in another. If Martin wasn't offended by the words in the locker room they are not against any standard. It doesn't matter if it offends your fragile sensibilities or anyone else's. Martin and Incognito can call each other every racial slur they can think of and kick each other in the nuts and its not abusive if they like it.

To clarify my theory. Martin did not premeditate a plan to sue. He got stressed and walked out. He had to provide an explanation because it was national news and he would be expected to return. I think the abuse theory was concocted afterward, maybe he even believes it because facing the reality that he couldn't handle the stress is harder to accept than blaming everyone else.

If he couldn't handle the normal and expected stress of his job that's one thing. But enduring necessarystress and enduring unnecessary abuse are two different things. We'll see over time which it was. Different jobs of course have different levels and different types of expected stress. Football requires the ability to endure a lot of physical and mental stress, but there are limits to what kind of stresses can legitimately be applied and which rise to an abusive level. The line between what constitutes normal stressful pressure and what constitutes abuse in a football workplace will be tested by this.

You are right, of course, that different individuals have different standards of what they consider abusive and offensive. But it's exactly because individual standards of tolerance differ that you need to set a single standard that governs behaviour among a collective. Some people will be very slow to be offended, others very quick. You can't leave people guessing what will or won't be tolerated by a coworker, which is why we create and enforce collective standards in the workplace. This makes it clearer to everyone what the rules are, and prevents unnecessary stress and conflict. This is all for the good, because honestly we don't want to live in a world where disputes rise continually because of misunderstandings and then end up being settled by fights. A lot of guys seem to romanticize that kind of frontier approach to dispute resolution, but really it is unproductive outside of a few rare situations.

I never said things have to be settled by fight so please don't pretend I said something I didn't.

Its exactly this statement (that I underlined) that is scary. Perhaps you don't see how having your behavior and words dictated to you by some authority is a totalitarian idea used throughout history by brutal dictators to criminalize ideas they disagreed with. Again, they put freedom of speech in the constitution for a reason.

The standard has already been set at what offends. Outside of totalitarian efforts against the constitution you cannot go further. You cannot ban words or ideas. There is no reason why your idea of what is acceptable is any more correct then someone else's idea. The idea of which words are "bad" or "good" is completely arbitrary and varies from person to person.

By this standard most laws would be the product of totalitarianism. Personally I think there's a balance that needs to be achieved so that freedom doesn't devolve into anarchy.